Faithful Conservative Catholics™ dedicated to deadening the nation's conscience to torture in favor of the Most Holy Trinity of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Following the Protocols of the Elders of Likud and Entering into Evil™ since ... wouldn't you like to know!!

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

By request, from Joe at the start of Lent

I wish to apologize for having wished publicly that Cdl. Roger Mahony's mother underwent an abortion while she was carrying him. Not only is abortion hideous but it insults those Catholics who revere the hierarchy and takes attention away from the man's episcopal performance. My previous comments served no purpose and unnecessarily offended bystanders.

Having said that, let me reiterate that Roger Mahony is a disgrace to the Church. He must be opposed. Any priests who live in his archdiocese and are reading this must unite and petition Rome for his removal. Rome will listen to the clergy more than the laity. This was how Cdl. Law was removed in Boston.

We all must understand that opposing monsters must not make us monsters.

Lent is not only a time for personal reflection and penance. It is a time to fight those who would take the Church down with them.

Christopher, the sentence you cite is a paraphrase from a quote by Friedrich Nietzche: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." (quote courtesy Shawn McE).

Besides, my comments concerned just Mahony, not all bishops.

Moreover, what other description besides "monster" would describe someone who has the power to stop evil against the innocent being performed on his watch, and not only does nothing, but exacerbates the situation for the sake of perserving an institution's facade?

Sometimes, Satan disguises himself as an "Angel of Light." Sometimes, he disguises himself as a church authority. If you don't believe that, Christopher, then you are pathetically ignorant of church history.

The insincerity is apparent, obvious and evident. Any attempt by me to explain it to you would only lead us down a trail of rhetoric until this entire thread had devolved into a discourse on the precise ontological meaning of the word "unnecessarily" or some other minutia.

Rather, just reflect on your apology for a while and I think it will become apparent to you as well.

chris 2-4, you are arguing feelings and intuition, not fact or evidence. If my second paragraph about Mahony bothers you, then consider the following:

Had I never made the comments for which I had apologized -- indeed, had I never been born -- Mahony still would be engaged in his malfeasant behavior, and the majority of Catholics would still be complacent in the face of that behavior.

If you want to criticize me, that's your business. I really don't care. My conscience is clear before God.

Wow, i've been reading Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, and others for a while, but I just found you guys an hour ago.

I've heard many critical things about Mahony and probably should know more about him (i live in Northern CA).

I must say, the material here explains a lot about the oddities I see from time to time on Mark Shea's blog and his attitudes on certain issues. Though I respect him and other apologists a great deal, it is quite a relief to find coherent critiques of his more extreme positions. Being rather young and a newcomer to the topics discussed here and elsewhere in the apologist-blog world, i was worried my misgivings would never be vindicated.

I'm not sure how to ask this, but where can i find...more? I'm having trouble putting this into words. I want to know more about whatever sort of conservative tradition that you hail from, if that is how one describes it.

I read things by self-described "conservatives" but they often disagree on vital issues like Iraq, foreign policy, and the role of religion in society.

I would very much like your version of all this, in the interest of fairness, if nothing else.

I just looked up the Diocese of LA on wikipedia, and...the cathedral!!!

WHAT THE HELL! Who is this guy?!

This kind of total disregard and even contempt for the aesthetic traditions of the Church and western civilization has got to be borderline mortal sin! To waste hundreds of millions of dollars on this monstrosity is so wrong i can't even begin to think of how much better off LA would have been had they spent even a FRACTION of that money on charity instead of this affront to the dignity of the Church. My gut reaction is to think it evil. It looks like something out of the Command and Conquer video games. It's like a monument to the tortured and deranged society modern life has wrought on us.

"I'm not sure how to ask this, but where can i find...more? I'm having trouble putting this into words. I want to know more about whatever sort of conservative tradition that you hail from, if that is how one describes it."

Andrew, I think you will find a great deal of divergence here as to our political views, although I think most of us would regard ourselves as conservatives of one stripe or another. I a define myself as an American conservative. I believe in the principles enunciated by the Founding Fathers before, during and after the American Revolution. My thought is also heavily influenced by Edmund Burke, most notably from his Reflections on the Revolution in France.

Here are some websites which are written from a Catholic and somewhat conservative perspective:

The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels looks pretty stark from the outside, but in all honesty it's much nicer from the inside. Except for, of course, the fact that one often finds Roger Mahony on the inside.

Anyway, good luck trying to find a big-name architect these days willing to make anything vaguely resembling a traditional cathedral.

I have followed your comments on Mark's most recent torture post. Your questions are very valid. Where the Church draws the line on infliction of pain in interrogation I think is still not defined.

Mark is far from honest in his presentation of the subject. Jimmy Akin and Fr. Brian Harrison have given it a much deeper treatment in a truly Catholic fashion. I don't know if they will be borne out in their assessments but they are more reasoned than Mark's.

Another good one is www.firstthings.com, not exclusively Catholic, but sound and respectful airings of different religious perspectives (predominantly Catholic)on contemporary culture.

Mark's weakness is this torture issue. He sees himself as defending Church doctrine against slippery agents of Satan who try to use "reason" to lead him and his readers to Hell. Actually, once you understand where he's coming from, his unfair and uncharitable treatment of his opponents is almost understandable.

I once compiled a set of links on the whole torture debate for a friend of mine. I think they provide a pretty good background and would be happy to forward it to you if you send me an e-mail: markadams {} gmail {} com

Also, Chris Blosser's blog, Against the Grain with all its sub-sites is a great place to go for an introduction to the neo-conservative strain within Conservative Catholicism.

Blosser has a real interest in exploring the long-time tension between liberal democracy and the free market on the one hand and the Catholic tradition which has at times been hostile to those ideas on the other hand.

He has done a great job of compiling the work of some of the most articulate defenders of the notion that Catholic social teaching is not only compatible with liberal democracy, but uniquely suited to it.

Blosser also has the unique advantage over some other bloggers of having actually read the works of those thinkers he wishes to engage.

I go periodically to check Mark’s site to follow the discussion and not just about torture. It seems there are many capable and reasonable people now debating Mark’s interpretation of what constitutes torture and what type of coercion is licit. Imagine my surprise to find I was banned (I think now for the eighth time.) What was my offense as I haven’t been regularly responding since I was unbanned. It seems it was three questions I asked, on a linked post, to Fr. Phillip, O.P.’s comments. It seems Mark trolls days old posts and bans people if there is “objectionable” comments. For your benefit Andrew, this is how Mark “Catholic” reasoning operates. Here I repost Frs. Comments and (roughly) repost my questions. Please point out what is objectionable about my comments.“Let's see...

Thomas Moore writes: "First, you have not addressed the argument that the Catechism specifically lists the instances when torture is immoral, and self defense and defense of others, and information to that end are not listed."

The criterion that JPII developed for calling the death penalty "cruel and unnecessary" applies here, I think. The death penalty is morally acceptable (though still cruel) when there are no "bloodless means" of dealing with habitual criminals, etc. Can the same be said for using torture to get info out of spies, terrorists, etc.? No, I don't think so. Torture, even if once thought morally acceptable, like the death penalty, is now morally suspect, and more than just suspect, but evil. Do I really need to distinguish btw torture and capital punishment? I would argue here that Aquinas' criterion for the legitimacy of the death penalty and torture (given state power) is never met in the US in 2008.

T.M. wrote: "Second, no one has addressed the argument that St. Thomas Aquinas's argued that governments had the authority to torture because they had the authority to execute. Unless of course, you, like Mr. Shea feel that the Angelic Doctor was simply a 'Torture Pharisee' and whose immortal soul is at risk."

I make it a practice to quote my brother Thomas Aquinas on a daily basis. Without a doubt he is right 99.999% of the time. However, we know that he got the Immaculate Conception wrong and we know that his grasp of biology and astronomy were shaky at best. I would say here that my brother would have distinguished more clearly (had he a different purpose in mind) btw the prolonged physical pain inflicted by torture (not to mention the inherently inhuman degradation of a person created in the image and likeness of God!) and the swift end brought by a blade to the neck. He would have also taken care to modulate his eagerness for both the death penalty and torture by looking carefully at the circumstances around the use of either. Regardless, T.A. is not the Roman church's living magisterium in 2008.

T.M. wrote: "Third, St. Augustine also took it for granted that judges had the authority to extract confessions by the use of torture in the City of God. But maybe he was also a purveyor of lies."

Again, perhaps he would have changed his mind given contemporary circumstances, i.e., non-torturous means of getting info. And, again, Augustine is not currently active as a teacher in the magisterium. IOW, our bishops' explicit teaching on contemporary moral issues trumps Augustine's speculative arguments everytime.

T.m. wrote: "Fourth, St. Thomas More was famously proud of being "grievous" to heretics. Three of which he handed over to be burned at the stake. Additionally, the law which he enforced and applied at the time as Lord Chancellor allowed him to use coercive interrogation techinques, so I doubt he is weeping over an honest rational debate regarding when torture is justified or if it can ever be justified."

No doubt that Thomas More was proud of his enforcement of the law. However, as I understand the argument here, no one is suggesting that the church has never condoned torture or has always taught against its legit use. The question is whether or not the church's magisterium NOW is calling on us as faithful Catholics to shape our consciences around the notion that torture, given modern methods and penal systems, is morally acceptable in 2008. The answer is clear: No, torture is not morally acceptable nor can it be justified on any utilitarian grounds (a la "pro-choice" arguments for abortion given overpopulation). IOW, torture is not necessary for the defense of our society (T.A.'s test for legitmacy for the d.p.) in 2008.

As a moral issue there is no problem in thinking in terms of doctrinal development and change when we think of torture. IOW, we are not arguing about the nature of the trinity or the existence of heaven here. For the most part we are arguing about the prudential use of non-lethal violence against our national enemies. Aquinas insists that circumstances always mitigate cases, so we have to pay careful attention to any and all non-torturous means of acquiring the info necessary to protect the country. These means exist and they must be used to the exclusion of torture. Needless to say, any use of torture as a form of retribution or "punishment" or "just desserts" is also excluded as evil.”

“The criterion that JPII developed for calling the death penalty "cruel and unnecessary" applies here, I think. The death penalty is morally acceptable (though still cruel) when there are no "bloodless means" of dealing with habitual criminals, etc.”

If the death penalty is “cruel” but still licit, then it is licit to do cruel things at times. Under what other conditions may the state be cruel?

The next question becomes (besides what is morally licit now being called evil) Fr. Phillip seems to equate torture with the death penalty.

“No, I don't think so. Torture, even if once thought morally acceptable, like the death penalty, is now morally suspect, and more than just suspect, but evil. Do I really need to distinguish btw torture and capital punishment? I would argue here that Aquinas' criterion for the legitimacy of the death penalty and torture (given state power) is never met in the US in 2008.”

This seems consistent with Aquinas’ thought. But this would seem to make the decision to torture to be one of prudential judgment and not an intrinsic evil. How do you explain this?

“For the most part we are arguing about the prudential use of non-lethal violence against our national enemies. Aquinas insists that circumstances always mitigate cases, so we have to pay careful attention to any and all non-torturous means of acquiring the info necessary to protect the country. These means exist and they must be used to the exclusion of torture. Needless to say, any use of torture as a form of retribution or "punishment" or "just desserts" is also excluded as evil.”

The final question then was: “This seems to be what people are asking. What is the distinction between immoral torture and licit coercive interrogation?”

Thus the bannable offense. Also, since Mark cannot delete this. It is Mr. Comerford who is not all he claims to be. This has been made painfully clear to Mark yet he still allows Comerford to post his distortions of reality. Yet another example of Mark’s dishonesty.

I didn't really believe Mr. Shea had gone as far as to precipitate the creation of a "Shea Watch" type blog, but i guess i had to experience it for myself.

I had a pressing question about torture that entered my mind. Naturally, i sought advice from the most active and readily accessible source.

The initial question was, essentially, about how bad an omission would be as opposed to choosing to do something that could possibly be wrong. I'm not the most articulate person, so i probably used some words and phrases that set off all the "torture apologist" alarms. However, i did get one answer, and then i moved on.

Of course, once i wanted a little more clarification on the matter, things got ugly. Mr. Comerford cast the first stone. He seemed almost some kind of caricature, so i wasn't sure if i should be offended or amused. Such blunt tactics drew condemnation from even Mark.

Long story short, Mark threw one personal attack after another, even after i made gestures for a truce. Even with Shane pointing out Mark's rashness, he would not relent.

In the end, i basically said that his rudeness was hurting his side, because any reasonable person would see that there are multiple legitimate points of view on the matter, and the credibility of their advocates is thus a major factor in swaying lesser minds (most of us).

Ironically, his accusations against my motives, were themselves the cause of the kind of negative intentions he accused me of harboring. Near the middle of the whole exchange, i realized that i was mad and *wanted* him to be wrong. His conduct had embittered me to the point that my intentions were no longer as honorable as i had thought.

After that, I took some time to recompose myself in the proper spirit, and made one last effort, but to no avail.

I still enjoy much of what Mark does (he can be very witty), but my admiration for him has been sobered by the reality of his conduct. Everyone has their demons, and i hope and pray that Mark can overcome his, as he seems to otherwise be a good guy.

Ironically, his accusations against my motives, were themselves the cause of the kind of negative intentions he accused me of harboring. Near the middle of the whole exchange, i realized that i was mad and *wanted* him to be wrong. His conduct had embittered me to the point that my intentions were no longer as honorable as i had thought.

Andrew, that, unfortunately is far for the course with Shea. He is a man who has the unfortunate habit of being so infatuated with his own opinions that he cannot respond to legitimate challenges civilly.

Moreover, he holds massive grudges. I myself was the target of one. I will not recount the gory details but I will say that he spent a good five years chasing me around just about every blog on which I commented in the Catholic Internet, entering into discussions that did not concern him and trying to get me into arguments that would get me banned. Unfortunately, he succeeded because he knew what buttons to push and I had trouble containing my temper over certain subjects.

That is the sort of man Shea is.He not only can be bullying but obsessive.

Ironically, his accusations against my motives, were themselves the cause of the kind of negative intentions he accused me of harboring. Near the middle of the whole exchange, i realized that i was mad and *wanted* him to be wrong.

I have tried many times to articulate to myself the counter productive effect of Shea's rhetoric but could never quite express it to my satisfaction. Andrew's sentence above does it perfectly.

Shea has actually made those of us who were more sympathetic to his arguments actually want him to be wrong.

I believe Shea thinks he addressed this by taking a combox survey of readers who normally don't comment. They all assured him that he was 100 percent right and so he feels convinced that he is striking the right tone.

But I have heard and seen too many people become totally put out with him to think that he isn't hurting himself more than he realizes.

Let me guess, you opposed his position on torture/"The Regime of Torture"?

No, Andrew. Believe it or not, Shea and I never "discussed" torture. Back in the day, I expressed tremendous anger at the Church and at the late Pope for 1) allowing the clerical sex-abuse crisis to metastacize 2) stating that the late Pope was appeasing Islam and 3) believing that the late Pope engaged in arbitrary theological and moral revisionism by promoting an essentially abolitionist view of capital punishment.

Along the way, I make some extremely intemperate comments that Shea would bring up in discussions that didn't involve him (or the subjects that involved those intemperate comments). He'd do so to try and get my goat and get people to ignore what I was saying by besmirching my credibility (as if he has any right now).

1) allowing the clerical sex-abuse crisis to metastacize 2) stating that the late Pope was appeasing Islam and 3) believing that the late Pope engaged in arbitrary theological and moral revisionism by promoting an essentially abolitionist view of capital punishment.

Interesting. I know little of the details. I guess this was before my time.

However, such concerns are not alien to me. I come from a very orthodox catholic family and my grandparents, in particular, were always dismayed about the post-Vatican II Church. I only learned the nature of their concerns much later, though.

Living in the most liberal areas of the country (New York, New Jersey, California), i consider myself extremely fortunate to have had parents and teachers who even bothered to think about these things. Otherwise, i'd probably have no idea what you're talking about.

It's interesting to note, when i was at Catholic private school, our teachers had different opinions about Church teaching on the death penalty, merits of the new mass, etc...

It's a pity i didn't become interested in my faith until late my sophomore year (high school). I'm probably only dimly aware of many important topics like the ones you listed.

Well it seems like Shea's chickens have come home to roost (to borrow a bit from Obama's pastor.) He has only had 20 or so contributors to his pledge drive. One commentator to his pleas has pointed out his abusiveness. Perhaps being hit in the pocketbook will work better than reason with Mark.

Well it seems like Shea's chickens have come home to roost (to borrow a bit from Obama's pastor.) He has only had 20 or so contributors to his pledge drive. One commentator to his pleas has pointed out his abusiveness. Perhaps being hit in the pocketbook will work better than reason with Mark.

and I mention them not because they represent anything very interesting, but because there is some classic Comerford in the comboxes. For example:

Folks:

This type of things happens every day at at least one facility in the Western World. Most incidents do not get reported. Back in the Dark Ages the USAF Security guys in the UK had to deal with a community of middle aged Lesbians who camped year round in RV's on facility (RAF Base) property.

By handling things patiently the facility gets a lot of good press and sympathy from the public. Maybe I missed something here but I am surprised that the protesters got arrested.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford

...and...

Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part:

"Some group of nitwits asks permission to protest on the grounds of a freaking TOP SECRET NUCLEAR RESEARCH FACILITY."

I reply: Well, it is not top secret. That is the problem. Every man and his dog knows what is going on in there. These facilities attract protesters, the mentally ill and alien flying saucers like flies. It is the price of doing business. In the Dark Ages we had all sorts of drills to deal with different types of intruders.

Quite frankly the worst thing we the security force could do would be to create "martyrs". We used to have designated trespass zones in which a protester could be seen from the outside (and have his picture taken) trespassing but the protester was not in the way. Everyone was happy.

I was just a grunt doing external security but my bosses would have handled this differently. IMO the protesters won this round.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford

Then I think a Comerford-imposter posted a comment about the sci-fi channel, but it was funny albeit fake. Good times are rockin'.

The point is the doublestandard--and it's an entirely legitimate point.

Diane, I trust you have learned by now (if this is Diane Kamer) that double standards are part and parcel to the whole apologetics racket -be they apologists for one side or the other. Whenever you see excuses made for behaviour of one who is one of their allies of the sort that those who were not their allies would be condemned for, you have seen a double standard. You have seen the tacit acknowledgment by logical extension that truth is not objective but subjective.

Either X is wrong, erroneous, heretical, or whatever in and of itself, not wrong if you say or believe it but right or otherwise tolerable if someone like Jimmy Akin does. But this is the very contradiction that people like Mark involve themselves in.

Whether they realize it or not, they are often useful idiots for the bigots who perpetuate the noxious caricature of Catholics as illogical unintelligent idiots who are required to appeal to authority to do their thinking for them.

The nice thing I suppose is that there is the Internet Archive where these sorts can be fact checked when they try to revise the historical record. Even if it takes six months for stuff to archive, they can run from it but they cannot hide :)

And I hereby would like to go on record as saying that I apologize to Mark Shea and to Rod Dreher for all the vicious un-Christian things I have said to and about them. I hope to avoid these sins of detraction in the future, God being my helper.

Thank you!

I will also make a similar statement over at Pauli's blog when I get a chance.

Diane's gesture was commendable indeed and I have no reason to question her sincerity -and not just because I have "known" her from probably eight or nine years or more going back to Steve Ray's old converts board. (Before the Novus Boardo imposition of early 2003.) I actually know Mark from that time too and to say that there is a night and day difference between the person who wrote back then and the one who does now under the name "Mark Shea" is no exaggeration -heck the difference from even four years ago is not insignificant.

To answer your question and then get back to work, if you mean with your question the removal by Mark of heinous material coupled with a genuine and Catholic notion of repentance, the answer to your question is it will not happen.

For one thing, removing such material would make the past three and a half years of his blog (particularly the past two years) pretty sparse in overall material which is left. He would either have to delete whole posts or significantly modified and the time factor for that is impracticable short of him deleting the entire blog and starting anew.

For another reason, even if he were to attempt such redactions and/or a wholesale deletion of the blog, that alone would not cut the mustard because Catholic tradition is clear on what a proper understanding of repentance and reconciliation involves:

######################

[T]he essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, a clear and decisive rejection of the sin committed, together with a resolution not to commit it again, out of the love which one has for God and which is reborn with repentance. Understood in this way, contrition is therefore the beginning and the heart of conversion, of that evangelical metanoia which brings the person back to God like the prodigal son returning to his father, and which has in the sacrament of penance its visible sign and which perfects attrition. Hence "upon this contrition of heart depends the truth of penance." [Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio Et Paenitentia 31 (circa 1984)]

######################

Could Mark do this??? Sure he could but as to the likelihood, The Eagles titled their 1994 tour "When Hell Freezes Over" and that is the most probable answer to your question.

I should note though that should he do this, we would be obligated out of Christian charity to receive him with sincerity, let the past go, and act as if nothing happened: not an easy thing to do admittedly but charity is a pretty demanding thing for those who take its precepts seriously.

Shawn you make excellent points. Expressions of contrition in and of themselves are not sufficient -- and can be harmful if they are meant to vaccinate oneself against further fact-based accusations of wrongdoing, or even against the discomfort of interior guilt. Anyone who cheapens the act of contrition by resorting to it haphazardly and without apparent seriousness is not only committing a new sin, but compounding the effects of the original one.

I guess we could pretty much bury this site. Though it might be good to have some posts occassionally. This especially since we are likely to have Obama as pres. It would be nice to have some varied Catholic opinions vs. the ultrmontanists ones presented as the only Catholic option on other blogs.

Mark, it never ceases to amaze those of us who really know you that you would even bother with an "obsesso-stalker blog" (your phrase, as you well know) that you don't like in the first place.

What's the matter, not getting any at home? Gee, why am I not surprised?

As far as "crack houses" are concerned, the only real crack house in the Catholic Blog Asylum is your place. You are addicted to the self-produced crack of your own insufferable self-righteousness and pseudo-intellectual arrogance; and your posse is addicted to the crack of their mindless devotion to their cult leader, you.

Moreover, the only "good riddance" anybody will be saying around here is when you're body becomes food for worms and your soul returns to the infernal regions that spawned it.

That's the way it is on Thursday, July 11, 2009. This is not Walter Cronkite and this is not CBS News. Good night and drop dead.

Well, yeah Joe, I have a pretty good amount of peace of mind. I'm fortunate to have been able to retain most of it even during, for example, my heated arguments with you.

But what I had in mind was a little more in the material realm, and what I *get* for what I spend the majority of my work day doing is this: I get PAID. I'm proud to be a part-time blogger who spends about 45 or so hours a week "bringing home the bacon" as they say. And I'm not ashamed in the least bit to have blogs which are lying fallow, abandoned, etc. I would be ashamed to abandon my family or to subject them to a more difficult time in life just so I can do my own thang....

"And I'm not ashamed in the least bit to have blogs which are lying fallow, abandoned, etc. I would be ashamed to abandon my family or to subject them to a more difficult time in life just so I can do my own thang...."

Pauli, I do want to thank you for retaining your peace of mind even when you have heated arguments with me. Seriously. That's the best thing that can keep me on track, instead of the snark that the Shea's of the world specialize in. I also guess that can't be easy, at times.

Strange how there has not been much "enjoying" going on at CAEI for a long time. Perhaps retaining the acronym and redefining the terms is in order here.

Lemme see off the top of my head and with Mark's reference to "crack houses" in mindCrackwhore Alliance of Enabled Imbiciles comes to mind. Imagine the "withdrawal" that his "clients" would have if CAEI were to not dispense its "junk" on a daily basis folks and feel sorry for them.

In the meantime, I cannot improve on Pauli's observation so I will leave it at that except to note that it will be about two more months until the next "waaaaaa, we cannot pay the bills and fix the car or take the kids to the dentist" sequence at CAEI...

Well, anonymous, what's so "un-Catholic" about this site? That we refuse to allow ourselves to be abused by a pompous hypocrite? That we call 'em (or, in this case, him) as we see 'em? That we recognize Mark Shea for who he is?

Remember what Jesus said: Do not cast pearls before swine and do not give what is holy to dogs. Mark Shea fits both categories because of his behavior and, more appropriately, his refusal to repent from it.

If he has problems with his temper, then he should see either a spiritual director or a psychologist, or both. We cannot make him do that; only he can make that choice. Mark is ultimately responsible for his own behavior, as are we all, and Christ Himself will judge us for how well or poorly we execute that responsibility.

"Well, anonymous, what's so "un-Catholic" about this site? That we refuse to allow ourselves to be abused by a pompous hypocrite? That we call 'em (or, in this case, him) as we see 'em? That we recognize Mark Shea for who he is?"

sorry, i'm being a bit indulgent here. but this is a "crackhouse" after all.

Well, after a few rounds at the Crackwhore Alliance of Enabled Imbiciles, I am sure there is a pretty bad case of the "munchies." Unfortunately for the readers at Cookies Always Eaten Immediately, Markmoud AhmadiniShea is also in charge of cookie distribution...for a small fee of course ;-)

You wrote in part: "Mr. Comerford, why don't you have the guts to put your name to what you say?"

Back in the dark ages I worked under cover for the CBI, a joint effort between the CIA and the FBI. I uncovered their plans and threatened to sue them. Now I must conceal my identity in order to not be tortured by the Bush Administration.

First of all, who is Joe, why is he not Walter Cronkite, and why did he request something at the start of lent? Should we really be quoting Nietzche? My German is not very good.

Maybe you have been granted the Vatican's approval to discuss Neitzche. I have not been given the task of spying on the internet. But then why are people imitating me? Anonymous writes:

I was a crash test dummy back in the dark ages.

Did this anonymous person read my file? If so, is this why he/she remains incognito. Surely there should be a realization that I possess no cognitive abilities whatsoever, and am as a result absolutely harmless.

Thus I hereby describe myself as a man bereft of intelligence, and I take utmost pains to do so in the most precise manner, indeed spelling it all out long hand, that I may not be made sport of as an industrial mannequin to insure the safety standards of our fine American interstate highway system.

I survived for years in the jungle with nothing but a pen knife, a flint, my training and my God-given wits.

May God richly bless and reward you all for your fine efforts. I remain,

Where are Dicky Comerford and Mark Shea? I have some nice tables for them to lie on to rest their weary selves. They are quite comfortable..to aid with relaxation they would have their feet only slightly above level ground. I even have some special "freedom straps" to help insure they did not fall off.

Oh jeepers, I almost forgot about the drinks...Laura always told me I needed to brush up on my hosting skills. And the drinks are the best water. Evian actually courtesy of my good buddy Nicolas.

Torq and I have "moved on" only in the senses that (1) we have nothing left to say to certain pompous self-righteous pharisaic lying bullies (I am not only talking about Shea), and (2) we think rational discourse long ago achieved all it can (notice how those pledge drives are getting longer each quarter, and how much more widely in St. Blogs Shea is seen as the blustering blowhard he is).

But rest assured I will never "move on" in the sense of not-detesting Shea, Zippy, Comerford, MM, et al. You make an enemy of me and it's permanent.

Oh ... and your next comment (if any) will have your name. Or it will be deleted.

I am not the author of the very last "anonymous" post (I have enough difficulty with my own sanity and salvation to comment on other people's), but of the previous two (the "move on" and "pavlovian" ones). I thought them rather mild and not particularly provocative. I guess I was wrong. Feel free to delete them. Mark does the same thing over at his blog when he doesn't like a comment I make.

Ironically, I meant "move on" very much the way you explained it, and Torq did in a previous posting.

You and Torq chose not to respond to Mark's latest (and very childish) comments. You simply ignored them.

A wise course, I thought, and one which others would do well to follow.

Ladies and gentlemen, I get the feeling that Shea posts comments concerning CfF, me, Victor, Shawn, Kathleen and the other regulars on this thread because 1)It somehow keeps his audience coming back (given the current composition of his audience) 2)It's his way of continuing the feud so he can get his psychological jollies.

Victor and Torq are right. Not responding to Shea seems to be the best course. I know, I'm the one who has made a cottage industry of responding to Shea fiercely (just look at a couple of commments on this thread, especially how this thread began in the first place).

But let's ask ourselves this: Are Shea and his erstwhile allies really worth our time? He seems to think that we are worth his but what has this whole exchange produced of any consequence?

As Christ Himself said, "Do not cast pearls before swine and do not give what is holy to dogs." Shea has placed himself in the porcine and canine categories because of his behavior -- and, more importantly, because of his refusal to change despite his myriad apologies. Why should we waste our time with somebody who appears to be so irredeemable?

Beyond the fact that you're completely wrong in this comment (lots of things put our souls in danger and can certainly include responding to Shea), i find it amazing that you believe we would look to you for such an imprimatur. classic.

Though it would be interesting Mark if, in a forum in which you could not ban and delete, you actually offered up some thoughts here that you post on your blog. That might add some real woo hoo to your thoughts.

But Philip, Mark is like those guys in school who had to have a few of his friends around when they bullied others because they were not man enough to do so themselves.

And without the ability to libel people and misrepresent their views coupled with the ability to delete and ban people, do you really expect Shea to stand for that? Hardly. That would mean having to actually interact with others and utilize logic and reason: two things there is a glaring lacuna of amongst persons such as Shea.

1. It automatically splits the Hilary-feminist vote, which was, at best, uncertain (and, at most, resentful) about Obama. Many of those voters are about women getting political power, not necessarily about Hilary per se.

2. It takes the mantra of "change" away from the Obama campaign, especially with an "old pol" like Biden as his running-mate. Palin seems very energetic and independent-minded, unlike Biden.

3. It shows that McCain is far more comfortable w/himself than Obama is. Obama has to rely on an "old pol" for a political advantage. McCain knows who he is and, therefore, can pick somebody who is feisty and independent.

4. Biden is screwed big time as an "attack dog." He can't attack Palin without seeming to be against women's rights or condescending.

If these are the kinds of decision that McCain would make as president, then he's far more suited for the job than Obama.

I concur with much of Joe's analysis on the Palin pick and could say even more than that. I am glad to be wrong in my prediction -though McCain obviously got my earlier memos about picking a woman conservative. Glad to know that Sen. McCain is so attentive to my advising memos overall.

Oh and though I realize that giving a complement to Joe on anything (a political analysis, his choice of breakfast cereal, etc.) is apparently synonymous with wearing an "Up With Hitler" tee shirt in Shea's universe, I will note that here briefly to save Mark the perceived "need" to weigh in here with his typical Alex Jonesian drivel.

Mark, I'm so glad you posted here. It just reinforces what everybody already knows: You're an obsessive, obnoxious, humorless jerk who worships his blog (and, in effect, his own words and thoughts) as God.

Do you really think you would find any sympathy from any of this blog's patrons? Do you really think you could touch off another flame war with me just so as to satisfy your pathetic ego?

Why do you think I posted that "crackuh-ass" comment? Just to mock you, because you are oh, so mockable. You're just too stupid to realize it.

Mark, when I read that response, I had to laugh. The more you defend yourself, the bigger a hole you dig for yourself. Do yourself a favor and stop digging, OK? That way, you'll save what little remaining self-respect you have.

Besides, if you really don't want to deal with me, then why do you bother commenting about me on this -- or any other -- blog?

Sigmund Freud died too early. He would have had a ball with you, a regular psychological gala.....

Do not, under any circumstances whatever, post anything here, of any description. It will be deleted the instant I find out about it.

And the only relevant fact worth noting is that in your second dropping here you told Joe to "buzz off." That is to say ... telling someone else what to do in that person's house. (An analogy you frequently use in defending your own site.)

Anybody with the self-righteousness needed to do that has nothing relevant to say to anyone else on any subject whatever.

1. With all the Catholic material out there on them there internets, why would I read "Catholic And Exploiting It"?

2. With all the thousands of books written about the Blessed Mother -- some by canonized saints and doctors of the church -- why would I crack one penned by someone who tells someone publicly to "buzz off", making mention of his mother mockingly?

3. Why do I feel more pity than loathing (his accusation) for a man so angry and obsessed?

Torq, Pauli, Shawn and Dianonymous, many thanks for your support. And now, for something completely different.

Can we clone Sarah Palin and make her Pope? I know she's not Catholic but 1)she can convert and 2)you don't have to be a priest or a bishop to be a Pope.

I don't know about you, but any woman who can field dress a moose has the moral testosterone to confront the corruption pervading the Church. I, for one, am tired of sophisticated academics who say great things and do little.

it's actually more entertaining to read this thread after the deletions. As was his destiny all along, the internet entity named Mark Shea has merged into the same meaningless, metaphysical nothingness as Charlie Brown's teacher. "Wah wah wah, wah wah, wah," indeed.

Geez, that guy comes around here more than I do. Though I have to say I would like to keep his posts up so that we could see how disordered his thinking is. Not that we can't get that by reading his blog. But it does give additional insight into some rather strange behavior.

But again, its your blog. And since it is, why don't you write something?

McCain up 54% to 44% in Gallup poll of likely voters. Woo-hoo!!! The Palin Effect!

Of course, when Chicago machine politicians like Obama start panicking, they pull every dirty trick in the book. It ain't over yet. Pray, pray, pray!!! (And take action, too, of course. This may be the first election in which I'll actually volunteer to do something....)

Comrades, our cell from South Park, Colo. has just sent us the latest conversation between Mark Shea and Dick Cumerford -- proving once again what profound, subtle, intelligent thinkers they really are:

Mark: "Why don't you go back to San Francisco with the rest of the Jews?"

Dick: "There's no Jews in San Francisco, you retard!

Mark: "I'll kick you in the n-n-n-nuts! Screw you guys!! I'm goin' home!!!"

That reminds me of this bit from early South Park where the teacher through a puppet on his hand misrepresents history to the students:

["That's right, Mr. Garrison! Christopher Columbus discovered America and was the Indians' best friend. He helped the Indians win their war against Frederick Douglass and freed the Hebrews from Napolean and discovered France." -Mr. Hat]

That makes about as much logical (not to mention factual) sense of any of Shea's geopolitical meanderings.

For a short time, CAEI was interesting because someone named "Harmless Fuzzball" was over there making some sense on voting, the election, prudential judgement, etc. But the rumor is that he/she is now banned, probably for making too much sense.

Anyone who makes too much sense gets banned at Crackwhore Alliance of Enabled Imbiciles -do not confuse them with facts, logic, or reasoned analysis because such energy is lost in that solipsistic universe anyway.

That purpose is to demonstrate that Mark Shea has nothing remotely equaling a life, that he is the one who is enslaved -- to his own emotional immaturity, as evidenced by the fact that he takes great pleasure in maintaining a contest in rhetorical urination, shall we say, with people whom he doesn't like!

Catholic blogdom is really in a sad state. I sometimes marvel that I ever came to the Church, given 1) that I spend a good deal of time on line and 2) the poor witness to Catholicism made by so many on-line Catholics.

[Catholic blogdom is really in a sad state. I sometimes marvel that I ever came to the Church, given 1) that I spend a good deal of time on line and 2) the poor witness to Catholicism made by so many on-line Catholics.]

Andy, as someone who has contributed to that state, I apologize for my role in it.

If you want to read two intelligent Catholic blogs, try http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com and http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog. You might not agree with the opinions presented but you won't get the infantile bloviating that dominates Shea's blog.

The insincerity is apparent, obvious and evident. Any attempt by me to explain it to you would only lead us down a trail of rhetoric until this entire thread had devolved into a discourse on the precise ontological meaning of the word "unnecessarily" or some other minutia.

Joe, I think your apology is sincere (and I appreciate it), but I also think you are way too easily baited, which leads to the furtherance of, shall we say, bad vibes, in addition to giving your enemies fresh ammunition to use against you.

If you don't take the bait, you won't be led into saying or writing intemperate things, and that will spare you from having to keep making apologies.

Torq and Victor, it's time to pick up the ball and heed diananonymous' call (no rhyme or pun intended). A post on the issue would be timely, not only in terms of current events but also in terms of updating this blog.

The instinctive desire for a third party (which I have flirted with myself over the years) is grounded on the intuition many have that a new way of approaching these matters is needed than what we are seeing in Washington or have seen for quite some time. I drafted a blog post on this and finished it last year (made some tweaks last month to complete it) but have not posted it yet due to a variety of circumstances. I would be glad to send you a preview of it by email if you like.

I am thinking a few other completed postings need to be put up first including one on consequentialism and proportionalism and how certain parties who love to mouth those words are ignorant as to what they really mean.

But there are reasons in this election to shelve the third party talk which I would be glad to go over with you if you like.

When you habitually criticize the sincerity of other people's apologies -- as you have done on this thread "anonymously" -- especially apologies made months ago, then you should expect to have your own sincerity questioned.

And I do question your sincerity. Big time.

I know how difficult it is to control one's passions. But when you've been able to maintain this stance successfully for six months, then come and talk to me about sincerity in apologies.

Outside of the odd prayer request, your blog has become more of a "near occasion of sin" for you than you probably realize. You're not going to be able to maintain your current position of repentence very long because the temptation to smack somebody down is too great.

Get away from your blog and get into something else. It's not generating much income for you and you could probably use your time in far better ways.

Mr. Anonynous (and we all know who you are), I suggest you read the following excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's editorial on Nov. 3.

According to the six-year narrative of the press and political class, the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies fall somewhere between the Spanish Inquisition and the Ministry of Love in "1984." So it was something of a shock to read a remarkable front-page story in the New York Times yesterday, the abridged version being: Never mind.

In their 1,600-word dispatch "Next President Will Face Test on Detainees," reporters William Glaberson and Margot Williams discover that, gee whiz, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay really are dangerous terrorists. The Times reviewed "thousands of pages" of evidence that the government has so far made public and concludes that perhaps the reality is more complicated than the critics claim.

Lo and behold, detainees are implicated in such terror attacks as the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Those with "serious terrorism credentials" include al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and the so-called "Dirty 30," Osama bin Laden's cadre of bodyguards. The Times didn't mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, though he's awaiting a war-crimes tribunal at Gitmo too.

For example, at least 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer but no other countries will accept them. If Gitmo is no longer a prison, some U.S. facility would have to house the remaining men while they await habeas hearings and trials. Yet no politician has offered up his state or district as an alternative -- and none will. Further: If military commissions are cashiered altogether, how will prosecutors protect classified information and intelligence sources and methods in open civilian criminal court?

...After a few harrowing threat briefings, maybe the new Commander in Chief won't rush to undo Mr. Bush's programs.

But give the Times credit for leading the revisionist pack. More such media revelations on the Road to Damascus -- or Baghdad, Tehran and Khartoum -- are no doubt on the way, especially if Mr. Obama is elected today.

Tell us, Mr. Anonymous/Shea, how you would apply Catholic Social Teaching to the above situation (other than shouting, "don't torture")?

One more thing: Until you and your comrade-in-arms (Fr. Johansen) are willing to confront the papacy for its selective application of its own norms (such as distributing the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians in Italy or refusing/failing to discipline malfeasant and miscreant bishops), then I'll take you both seriously.

--making "anonymous" comments to circumvent blog operators when you criticize such behavior in others on your own blog

--making pompous criticisms of "consequentialism" when you will do and say *anything* (such as construct rhetorical straw men, deliberately misrepresent opposing arguments and engage in personal attacks) to advance your own opinions

By the way, Shea/Anonymous, regardless of what this blog's operators will be doing once they reach 85, you will most likely at that age continue to misrepresent opposing opinions deliberately, construct straw men, engage in meaningless personal attacks, deny any of this once called on it -- and post meaningless, snide remarks directed at people who don't give a damm about you.

Just have to say you are a total ass with today's post on your blog. Neely's testimony does nothing to support your claim that there was an official policy of prisoner abuse. Nothing. When you decide to stop being an ass, why don't you recant you mindless insults.

I am not sure how much this weblog is viewed anymore but I will notify perusers here of something fresh off the presses as of today which deals with a key issue that the "Maker of No Distinctions" likes to kvetch about constantly:

Comerford, inventor of illnesses to get a disability pension from the Mass. National Guard, and pees his pants when examined by a female doctor, has the gall to say today about supporters of the Iraq war: "They of course intend to fight their preventative wars from the safety of their key boards."

At least they didn't invent a disability to get out of serving their country, Dick.